FAIRFIELD CONNECTICUT BUILDING EXPERT
DIRECTORY AND CAPABILITIES

SFAA Commends Congress for Maintaining Current Bonding Protection Levels in National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA)

December 20, 2021 — The Surety & Fidelity Association of America
December 15, 2021 (WASHINGTON, DC) – The Surety & Fidelity Association of America (SFAA), a nonprofit, nonpartisan trade association representing all segments of the surety and fidelity industry, commends the U.S. Senate and House for passing the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) for Fiscal Year 2022, and including Section 877, which exempts the Miller Act from periodic indexing for inflation. SFAA would like to thank Miller Act exemption bill sponsors, Representatives Nydia Velazquez (D-NY) and Byron Donalds (R-FL), as well as Senators Robert Portman (R-OH), Gary Peters (D-MI) and Mazie Hirono (D-HI), for their leadership and commitment on the passage of this bill. Exempting the Miller Act from periodic indexing for inflation ensures essential payment protections remain in place for subcontractors, suppliers, and workers on all federal construction contracts subject to the Miller Act. The exemption also ensures performance protections for taxpayers will remain in place on federal construction contracts of $150,000 and more. For over 80 years, the federal Miller Act has protected taxpayers against risk of loss by requiring payment and performance bonds on federal construction contracts. President Biden is expected to sign the NDAA into law in the coming days. The Surety & Fidelity Association of America (SFAA) is a nonprofit, nonpartisan trade association representing all segments of the surety and fidelity industry. Based in Washington, D.C., SFAA works to promote the value of surety and fidelity bonding by proactively advocating on behalf of its members and stakeholders. The association’s more than 450 member companies write 98 percent of surety and fidelity bonds in the U.S. For more information visit www.surety.org. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

---

5 Ways Equipment Financing is Empowering Small Construction Businesses

August 24, 2017 — Duane Craig - Construction Informer
Small construction businesses can often get 100% equipment financing, eliminating the down payment, and freeing up cash, according to the Equipment Leasing and Finance Association (ELFA). Most small businesses need equipment in order to operate and grow, and each business must decide on an acquisition strategy that is right for it. But, a majority of businesses turn to equipment leasing and financing so they can take advantage of a range of benefits. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Duane Craig, Construction Informer
Mr. Craig may be contacted at dtcraig@constructioninformer.com

---

Mandatory Attorneys’ Fee Award for Actions Brought Under the Underground Utility Damage Prevention Act

September 22, 2016 — Lindsay K. Taft – Ahlers & Cressman PLLC
In Washington, RCW 19.122 (the Underground Utility Damage Prevention Act or “Call Before You Dig” statute) provides for the protection of underground utilities. The statute was recently updated in 2013 and provides that homeowners and contractors must call “811” to schedule a “utility locate” prior to commencing any excavation. Failure to do so can result in steep penalties, as well as a mandatory fee award for the prevailing party. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Lindsay K. Taft, Ahlers & Cressman PLLC
Ms. Taft may be contacted at ltaft@ac-lawyers.com

---

Impairing Your Insurer’s Subrogation Rights

May 06, 2024 — David Adelstein - Florida Construction Legal Updates
Liability insurance policies have a provision that allows them to subrogate to the rights of their insured. This provision is commonly referred to as a transfer of rights provision and reads: If the insured has rights to recover all or part of any payment we have made under this Coverage Part, those rights are transferred to us. The insured must do nothing after loss to impair them. At our request, the insured will bring “suit” or transfer those rights to us and help us enforce them. In a recent dispute, an insurer sued its insured claiming the insured breached the insurance policy-a contract—by impairing the insurer’s subrogation rights. In other words, the insurer claimed its insured breach the insurance contract and the transfer of rights provision above. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of David Adelstein, Kirwin Norris, P.A.
Mr. Adelstein may be contacted at dma@kirwinnorris.com

---

Pay Loss Provision Does Not Preclude Assignment of Post-Loss Claim

July 30, 2015 — Tred R. Eyerly – Insurance Law Hawaii
The court determined that a policy's loss payment provision did not bar a post-loss assignment. One Call Prop. Servs. v. Sec. First Ins. Co., 2015 Fl. App. LEXIS 7643 (Fla. Ct. App. May 20, 2015). After One Cell performed emergency water removal for the insured, the insured assigned his rights to policy proceeds as payment. One Cell alleged that Security First refused to reimburse the insured adequately for the services provided. One Cell filed suit, and Security First moved to dismiss. The trial court granted the motion based upon the policy's non-assignment provision. One Cell appealed. One Cell argued post-loss assignments were valid under Florida law even when the policy contained an anti-assignment provision, and the right to payment accrued on the date of the loss. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Tred R. Eyerly, Insurance Law Hawaii
Mr. Eyerly may be contacted at te@hawaiilawyer.com

---

Can Your Small Business Afford to Risk the Imminent Threat of a Cyber Incident?

November 28, 2018 — Jeffrey M. Dennis & Heather H. Whitehead – Newmeyer & Dillion LLP
Cybersecurity incidents are occurring on a daily basis and at an increasingly growing rate. Yet, many small businesses still have not obtained adequate (or any) cyber insurance to address these risks and the costly impacts to the business that will result. In a recent study completed by the Insurance Information Institute1, only about a third of all small businesses polled responded that they have cyber insurance in place, with 70% of respondents replying that they have no plans to purchase a cyber insurance policy in the next 12 months. Most of the businesses indicated that they do not believe they have any need for cyber insurance, yet almost half of those same companies stated they are unprepared to handle cyber threats. A main reason for not purchasing cyber insurance was a lack of understanding about this type of insurance and coverages available. The Risks for Small Businesses These statistics are alarming considering that the average cost of a cyber-related loss for a small business has increased 250% in the past two years, and now totals $188,400. In determining whether insurance coverage should be purchased, companies typically assess the perceived risks to the company, the likelihood of such risks occurring, as well as any costs or expenses that may result. For example, most companies regularly obtain a property policy to cover a fire or other casualty that may damage its business location even though such an event is unlikely or unexpected. Yet, cyber incidents are just as likely, if not more likely to occur, and the impacts to a company in the event of an incident are far worse. Many incidents result in a complete suspension of the daily operations of the company for several days or longer. In addition to financial loss, companies may face the following as a result of a cyber incident:

• Theft, breach or loss of information and data;
• Damage to the company's reputation, brand or image; and
• Regulatory, governance and legal issues.
• How Cyber Insurance can Help

Cyber insurance policies can be obtained to address the losses related to a data breach and may include costs for investigating a breach, notifying people affected by a breach of personally identifiable information, managing the potential damage to reputation and other crisis-management expenses, recovering lost or corrupted data, and related legal expenses. More importantly, well-drafted policies can afford coverage for business interruption losses; i.e. those expenses and lost revenue resulting from a breached system and a company's inability to continue its usual operations. Coverage may also be obtained for "cyber extortion", which covers costs resulting from an extortion event such as ransomware or fraudulent wire transfers. It is important to keep in mind that cyber insurance is only one component to consider when developing and implementing an overall risk management strategy to prevent cyber incidents. However, taking into account the exposure to a company if and when a cyber incident occurs, it is highly advisable to have this coverage in place. 1Insurance Information Institute, "Small business, big risk: Lack of cyber insurance is a serious threat," October 2018. Jeff Dennis is the head of the firm's Privacy & Data Security practice. Jeff works with the firm's clients on cyber-related issues, including contractual and insurance opportunities to lessen their risk. For more information on how Jeff can help, contact him at jeff.dennis@ndlf.com. Heather Whitehead is a Partner in the firm's Privacy & Data Security practice. Heather also practices insurance coverage matters for commercial, retail, industrial, mixed-use, multi-family and residential projects. For more information on how Heather can help, contact her at heather.whitehead@ndlf.com. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

---

Foreclosure Deficiency: Construction Loan vs. Home Improvement Loan

November 12, 2019 — Kevin J. Parker - Snell & Wilmer Real Estate Litigation Blog
In a recent Arizona Court of Appeals case, Helvetica Servicing, Inc., v. Pasquan, 2019 WL 3820015, (8/15/19), the Court of Appeals addressed the distinction between (1) a construction loan (or refinance of same) and (2) a home improvement loan (or refinance of same), as it relates to Arizona’s anti-deficiency statute, A.R.S. §33-729(A). In general, an anti-deficiency statute provides that although a purchase-money lender or a construction lender can – in appropriate circumstances – foreclose on their loan and cause a sale of the property to pay the loan, the lender cannot (if the statutory criteria are met) force the homeowner/borrower to pay the remaining balance still owed on the loan following the foreclosure (known as the deficiency). In other words, if the anti-deficiency rule applies, the lender’s sole remedy to collect on the loan is a foreclosure sale of the property; and the homeowner/borrower’s downside risk is loss of the property in foreclosure; the homeowner/borrower does not have any personal liability to pay the remaining unpaid balance of the loan post-foreclosure. In effect, the homeowner/borrower can simply walk away and not have to repay the loan. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Kevin J. Parker, Snell & Wilmer
Mr. Parker may be contacted at kparker@swlaw.com

---

After Sixty Years, Subcontractors are Back in the Driver’s Seat in Bidding on California Construction Projects

September 22, 2016 — William L. Porter – Porter Law Group Bulletin
For almost the last sixty years, the standard for bidding on California construction projects has been governed by the landmark case of Drennan v. Star Paving (1958) 51 Cal.2d 409; which generally states that the contractor bidding to perform work for a project owner is entitled to rely on the bids of subcontractors in formulating its own bid to do the work. Under the equitable legal doctrine of “promissory estoppel”, which serves as the foundation of the Drennan case, even though there was no actual “contract” between the contractor and subcontractor at the time of bid, the contractor was entitled to enforce the subcontractor’s bid in reliance on this doctrine. For bidding purposes, promissory estoppel serves as an equitable substitute for an actual contract. The courts have, since that time, allowed promissory estoppel to act as a substitute for the contract in public bidding because, in equity, when a contractor “reasonably” relies on a subcontractor’s bid in formulating its own bid, it would be unjust to allow the subcontractor to withdraw a bid on which the contractor had relied in submitting its own successful bid. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of William L. Porter, Porter Law Group
Mr. Porter may be contacted at bporter@porterlaw.com

---